User talk:Jeremygbyrne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Potential breach of Wikipedia policy by user:Jeremygbyrne

Your attention is drawn to WP:3RR, and it should be noted that your behaviour on page Christian eschatology is consistent with a breach of this policy. Please desist from arbitrarily removing the content of others. J.christianson 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I am aware of where the reversion count stands, but you should also be aware that the article makes it plain that "It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others." Basically, reversion is frowned upon, with few exceptions. There are numerous recommendations for other ways to deal with material over which there may be differing views. In any such instance, it would have been appropriate to leave the edit in place and apply the {{fact}} tag to request supporting citations for material where you are unfamiliar with the sources. If there were still concerns, then it would have been appropriate to open discussion on the Talk:Christian eschatology page so that the section could be subject to peer discussion and review.
It should be noted that the article is describing "Christian eschatology", the section is "Biblical passages on life after death", comment is made on Christian "belief in life after death as a central and indispensable tenet of their faith", and then uses a verse that highlights the faith of Old Testament examples (ie those before the birth of Christ - some by thousands of years) and uses it to illustrate their belief in an afterlife. We then come across an uncited assertion (but one that I have heard similar claims of before) presenting a minority view (in context) that would probably be best moved to a separate section discussing sceptical perspectives regarding Christian eschatology (in the same manner as that of Section 2.6 of the Resurrection of Jesus article). It is appropriate in the circumstances to provide some historical and (perhaps more importantly, in light of what section it is in) Biblical perspectives for readers to compare and weigh up in their own minds. Perhaps you may wish to edit the "innovation of Christianity" and "admixture with Greek philosophy" POV and strengthen it with some references illustrating how this belief in the afterlife only came about in the manner mentioned for those who wish to delve further into such alternative theories.
As part of the overall eschatological theme, set in the opening lines "Where eschatology refers to doctrine that represents a history of inquiry into the concept of the destiny of all things, in Christian context, this inquiry is vested in the prophesied purposes of God as documented in the Bible", you will note the article makes numerous references to the resurrection, not only of Christ, but also of the righteous and the wicked. Further to the linked supporting verses, Christ prophesied regarding his own resurrection post death when he said "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." All these are aspects of the afterlife (or as the section topic puts it, "life after death"), as they deal with matters pertaining to the outcomes of the body, soul and spirit post physical death. As can be seen in the afterlife article, it mentions; "Belief in an afterlife usually entails the belief that something survives the body when death occurs, such as an immaterial soul or spirit." J.christianson 07:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 13:42, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright tags

I noticed that you recently uploaded Image:Jeremygbyrne userpic1.jpg for your user page. But under Wikipedia's policies, you still have to add an image copyright tag. (Like {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:14, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Doh. Thanks for reminding me. — JEREMY 06:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I suggest you change your license on this image as soon as possible. As per WP:CSD Images/Media #5 ('copyright images'), it'll be deleted within the next 24 hours. I would suggest using a Public Domain license instead. That guideline states:

Copyrighted images uploaded without permission of the copyright holder, or under a license which does not permit commercial use, which are not used in any article, and which has been tagged with a template which places them in Category:Orphaned fairuse images for more than seven days (so-called "orphaned fair use images").

// Pathoschild 02:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Refusal to serve in the Israeli military

I didn't notice you were editing when I was making this change[1]. I do think it's best to use their exact wording anyway on what exactly they were refusing to do. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 08:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey dude why you edit my comment about euthenasia?

[edit] Thank you

Thanks for fixing all the sigs, especially mine on Talk:Islam. Keep up the good work. --Anonymous editor 18:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why no ALL in Search?

Anyone know a quick way to check all the tickboxen on the Search page? Surely there should be an "All" checkbox in the 'Search in namespaces' section. — JEREMY 12:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Image:Jeremygbyrne userpic1.jpg

I don't seem to have a copy of this image (which was scanned from an old photo at my parents' rural property), so I can't re-upload it with the appropriate tags. Could you please put it somewhere I can download it from? Thanks very much. — JEREMY 07:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have a copy of it either. It's possible someone with more technical knowledge can retrieve it for you from a database dump or something. Perhaps if you ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). dbenbenn | talk 18:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Just to make sure you notice. Please see Wikipedia:Lost images. It's probably still at answers.com. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Offensive

Ok, I'll bite: why should this not be deleted straight away as a reposted copy of validly deleted material?
brenneman{T}{L} 02:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for talking, rather than just speedy-deleting! I'll take this to the template's talk. — JEREMY 02:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The template is exactly the same as the 2005 version. I saw your talkpage note, where you said "it's different because it could be used on different offensive pages now". I disagree. The 2005 template could have been used in the context you assert, and the recreation could be used for the issues raised in 2005. The template looks the same, contains the same text, and is used for the same purposes. It failed TfD in October 2005, and as far as I'm concerned that's the end of it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, never mind. I was comparing it with the copy you created earlier today, not with the 2005 version. My apologies.
I have discussed the issue with another admin, and will undelete the template for you. I do believe that it was inappropriate for you to recreate it when User:MarkSweep deleted it (you might say that it's inappropriate for me to undelete it now, but the difference is I'm talking to Mark anyway, whereas you're doing what you're doing and then saying "ohh, but I'll stop if it's going to get me blocked). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I did put a note on Mark's talk page — but thanks again for being reasonable and assuming good faith. — JEREMY 05:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoons

Dear Jeremy, I have a different suggestion to solve the dispute:

  • This article is about the controversy, not about the cartoons. There is no reason to put all of them here.
  • The idea that 'everybody should see the cartoons and decide himself' is meaningless and pointless in my opinion. A Westerner hardly can see anything wrong with them, but Muslims will be ofended and feel insulted.

So, only one cartoon (maybe an artist drawing picture) which is less provocative can be replaced with this one. That cartoon gives a good summary of the phenomena, and yet, doesn't offend anybody as the main object of the cartoon is the artist instead. Resid Gulerdem 05:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that, at this time, that's a lost argument. In any case, you'd only have to make another article to link the cartoons from, which people would then refer to. (Indeed, the cartoon collage could be linked to from outside, even it didn't appear on any article.) Wikipedia doesn't like to hide things if they're of popular interest, so a solution must be found which doesn't involve making it difficult to find the cartoons on wikipedia if you're actually looking for them. — JEREMY 05:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-automated link sorting

[edit] Muhammad Cartoons

Thanks for adding your comments in the Muhammad cartoons controversy talk page. I have spent an extremely inordinant amount of time defending edits that would otherwise seem not at all controversial. Would you mind visiting that page occassionally? your comments could provide a voice of reason. PaxTerra 11:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

np. I'm not sure how much time I can spend patrolling for POV on that page, though. I've probably given it my best shot with Poll #4. I'm disappointed there seems no interest at all in labelling the article to try to ameliorate the negative impression wikipedia's very political stance has made on some people. But what can you do? — JEREMY 11:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, a Wikipedian who is an Ausiie and who agrees with me re the cartoons. I've seen your cokmments on that rfc page that Raphael set up, and I'm glad to have met you. Arno 07:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antichrist & Shiites

You reverted my last edit after I improved it. Also it already had a reference to a WorldNetDaily page. What do you mean by "it needs a citation"? rossnixon 07:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that; hadn't notice you'd made changes. The problem is, the information is in the wrong section. It needs to be in the section dedicated to the (innumerable) identifications of people with the Antichrist, which is where I moved it. (I put it with the LaHaye stuff because it's an identification made by similar folks.) Note that Sunni Muslims also believe in the Mahdi (although they don't believe he is the so-called Twelfth Imam), and that Islam has its own Antichrist called ad-Dajjal, a much better fit for the Christian figure than Mahdi, who is always depicted as a positive figure allied to Jesus. — JEREMY 08:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Many people may not be aware that despite the name "Antichrist" sounding quite evil, it actually means "Pseudo Christ". In this case, "anti" means "instead of". Thus this person will appear to be Christ to the majority, and will be followed as such until Satan enters him after 3.5 years of his rule. rossnixon 09:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You must be aware that these beliefs and interpretations are far from universal, and that there are many other historical and modern day figures who fit one or more of the descriptions of the Antichrist. To specifically highlight a ("godly") religious figure from Islam, as though this identification were uniquely specific or generally accepted, is POV. By all means cite third-party sources for these interpretations, and include them in the Contemporary Identifications' section, but be aware that this identification is one of many. — JEREMY 09:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitsubishi

UPDATE TO MITSUBISHI PAGE Hey do you like my update to the mitsubishi page?

[edit] Reverted?

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. .Also please refrain from adding stubs to Wikipedia.Prasi90 07:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Reverted?

You posted a stub about a Canadian singer.I didnt revert it yet its still there if you want to expand it.Sorry about the automated message.

[edit] Link Removed!!?

On the Mahdi page I had put a link to another page created for Prophetic Traditions referring to Mahdi. It was removed. Could you give me a hint what would be the best place I could put it?? I would be Wikifying the Traditions page gradually. Any suggestions? Thanks.

I've now moved the link to "See also", but the article really needs work to comply with wikipedia's standards. (I'd quickly bulk-remove all the PBUHs, AZs etc. if you don't want to upset the Christian fundamentalists, and rewrite as much of it as you can to avoid copyvio claims, for example.) — JEREMY 03:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Ya, Got It :) Azgs

[edit] Censorship

I am trying to make some improvements in the project Censorship. I thought you might want to know about it. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 16:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to write a new policy Wikipedia:Wikiethics. I am very busy but believe strongly on having some standards in Wiki. I would appreciate if you can review it and incoorporate new ideas you might want to add. Your contribution is greatly appreciated. I cannot finish it without help. Best. Resid Gulerdem 00:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jeremy, I would appreciate your suggestion and contribution on Wikipedia:Wikiethics proposal. Some people want to kill the process and I would like to put it into a useful form. Any comment or contribution would be appreciated. Resid Gulerdem 06:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Tomshear newspage.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Tomshear newspage.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -SCEhardT 05:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talkpage

Sure thing. An IP - circumventing a block, and which has since been blocked - mass-spammed talk pages of users to garner support. I mass-reverted (it's spam, and disruption). I hope that answers your query, and I apologise if you did not wish for me to do so on your talk page. NSLE (T+C) at 11:33 UTC (2006-03-18)

[edit] Accusations

Jeremy! Please retract your accusation about me here. They are baseless and inflammatory. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 06:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I didn't realise it wasn't your intent. Sorry to disturb. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 07:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

I cannot find you being blocked in the block log. Are you on AOL? Could you give me your IP address? NSLE (T+C) at 07:18 UTC (2006-03-22)

I seem to have been unblocked now; thanks anyway. — JEREMY 11:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Translation request

Hi Jeremy! The Arabic visible in the image is rather a random collection of words in Qur'anic style. I'd still recomend you to ask someone else about it in case i am wrong. Cheers -- Szvest 15:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Aha. This reinforces my suspicion that the depiction was not made "in good faith" (or was at least made in negligent ignorance). Thanks very much for that; I'll ask one of the other Arabic translators to confirm it. — JEREMY 15:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I liked your second set of changes better to the V for Vendetta article

In the novel, I believe that the reader was forced to judge whether or not V was a terrorist or a freedom fighter. (The film was a lot less ambiguous, and he seems a lot nobler in it.)

I think any description of V in the film should have elements of both in it, leaning more towards the more positive side. In a perfect world, the description in the *film* should be more of a freedom fighter, while the novel more terrorist/anarchist, while the article on V the man should balance both.

That's my 2 cents.--P-Chan 04:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. — JEREMY 04:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiethics

Hi Jeremy, the discussion on the Wikiethics page is continuing at the personal confict level. If you believe the important of the proposal I would apprecaite for your contributions and appearance on the discussion page. Please note that this proposal cannot be completed or become successful without your contributions. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 03:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IP at "Fictional universe"

Thanks for your comment about trademark being relevant to the issue of fictional universes and so-called "intellectual property". I'm not completely familiar with fictional universes nor their legal ramifications. I suppose you're right that there could be disputes over trademark rights ("Harry Potter", "Buffy the Vampire Slayer") in the contect of discussion fictional universes. But in that particular sentence, IP was concerned over the combined works of multiple authors, or shared universe, which would definitely be concerned only with copyright. --71.161.210.207 18:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Please justify your removal of the insanity section. -Objectivist-C 03:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

See the comments in the text; the section is not removed, just commented-out, but it needs cites before it is credible enough to include. — JEREMY 03:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. "These guys are nuts" is not seriously questioning sanity, nor is belief in apocalyptic myths,

I'm going to have to disagree with you on the latter point. -Objectivist-C 03:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the other point as well, in context I would say he was genuinely expressing reservations about their mental state.
I'm going to have to question your judgment here. In any case, the opinion of a US Army officer about the mental state of anyone is utterly irrelevant and non-encyclopaedic. It's also obvious propaganda. — JEREMY 06:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
That isn't the only reference in the section; furthermore, the article title is 'Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad', not 'Indubitable facts surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad', and it has already been established that his sanity is, in fact, a topic of debate. -Objectivist-C 16:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good job

Good job, Jeremy.--Aminz 11:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Err... which bit? — JEREMY 11:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Encyclopedic tone

Re your comments on my talk page. I appreciate your desire to reach out and communicate with me. However, I'd like to make clear, it's not "my edits" that I've attempted to defend. This article is full of edits from many, many people. What I object to is what seems to me a reflexive need to stray from encyclopedic tone.Timothy Usher 00:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic eschatology

I removed the Qadiani (Ahmadi) religious beliefs from Islamic related page.

Siddiqui 15:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

While I recognise that mainstream Islam does not regard Ahmadi beliefs as Islamic, it is not reasonable to exclude those beliefs from all articles "tagged" as Islamic, so long as those beliefs are as clearly labelled, as those were. I'm going to restore them, and move this discussion to Talk:Islamic eschatology. — JEREMY 05:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for your comment

I saw a recent posting you made to User:Timothy_Usher's talk page [2]. I agree with your comments about the community consensus we believe in but I am finding it very hard to reason with him in a civil manner devoid of constant attacks. In light of this, I have put his user name on the Administrator notice board [3] for his harassment of me on talk pages and my own user page because I see no other option of dealing with him. I would like to either request your comment on the notice or ask permission to post a link to the diff showing your comment on his talk page. User247 02:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think my comments on Timothy are best summarised in that paragraph. You don't need to ask my permission to link to it. — JEREMY 05:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ultraman

Jeremy,

I, too, remember Ultraman fondly.

Regarding the content issue, I don't know what else to suggest except to ask other editors, which we've done and can continue to do, or a request for comment. I've never done that... . ..in fact, I've not been the first to request admin involvement on any page or with any user. MuslimsofUmreka got a sympathetic admin to lock his sock-supported version of the page, and then continued to abuse people on the talk page as racists, homosexuals, etc., while insisting that non-Muslims had no right to participate. I wouldn't have bothered to report this had he and the editor in the section above not already involved several admins on their behalf. And he wasn't blocked for anything he'd said to me, though he'd said enough, but something he posted on Kyaa the Catlord's home page about the KKK.

Similarly, User:Deuterium - someone else had already brought it to ANI. I didn't know about his dossier on me and several other editors until Tom harrison directed me to the page in regard to the Talk:Islamism blocks against MOU and Kyaa to advocate for Kyaa, whom I thought had done nothing wrong.

Finally this McKhan fellow: again, he'd just gotten an admin (what do you know, same one as with Islamism!) to lock in his version of a page which can only be desribed as a hit piece Al-Ahbash, and then proceeded to relentlessly personalize the discussion, accusing me of having an agenda to whitewash the sect (which I'd never heard of prior to arrival), against whom he appears to be waging a personal vendetta for reasons wholly unknown to me.

So there it is: my defense.

Oh, the content issue on Muhammad - we do need more opinions, preferably from those with little or no history of editting Islam-related issues. I'm just uncertain who or how to ask.Timothy Usher 10:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As you'd asked after my motives earlier, perhaps deletionist is closest to the truth. See my most recent edits to Christianity (more to come) and User talk:Irishpunktom\proposed Infidel. It feels strange to defend myself in this way, but WP can be in some cases a inherently paranoid environment - for starters, we cannot see one another's facial expressions, or hear tone of voice, further there are a good number of editors who do not act in good faith - and it's important to me to establish a good relationship with you, even if/that we don't always agree.Timothy Usher 11:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Hi, do you have an email address; I need some info from you? Thank youZmmz 05:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zmmz. Yes, I do have an email address. However, if this is a wikipedia-related matter, I'd much prefer to keep all such correspondence open and public (ie. to use this page). Hope that's OK. — JEREMY 05:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Jacob kovco.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jacob kovco.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Army personal weapons

To be honest, I have no idea if private soldiers are issued with 9mm handguns. My view is that it is likely that they are, as they'd be used as a last resort for self-defence once the personal weapon (i.e. assault rifle or similar) failed/ran out of ammunition. This certainly seems standard in US forces, and is most likely the same in the British Army too, so I'd guess the Australians would follow similar practice. I'm trying to find some way fo finding out, but it's a question of putting together the right search phrase!! Sorry I can't be more help at the moment. Hammersfan 27/04/06, 10.20 BST

[edit] GA

hi Jeremy -- as I said, I am not desperate to see the cartoon article listed as 'good' right now, mainly because it is too long and recentist. My position is more general, that a single user with an axe to grind should not be allowed to disrupt the rating process. The specific "display the cartoons inline" debate that seems to play into this is a dead and decayed horse, I won't comment any more on it. dab (ᛏ) 10:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allah = God

I don't like to put Allah in paranthesis either. --Aminz 07:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It was just a temporary compromise. --Aminz 08:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, and now it's clear why it was good that I decided to follow Aminz's edits after the Allah/God question was seemingly settled. Netscott 08:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
jeremy, forgive my saying so but I get the distinct impression that you think I'm anti-Muslim. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you take a small bit of time and follow my contributions you will see that all that I do is edit for NPOV. I consider myself truly balanced in my editing relative to Islam/Muslim topics.
I'm curious to know why you do not want to spread the name Allah outright and feel you must 'perk peoples curiosity' in order to in a sense 'trick' them into discovering what Allah is about? I believe this name is not understood enough and that only through spreading it will people come to better understand what it represents.
Thank you for your apology, I greatly appreciated it. Netscott 08:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
If you take a small bit of time and follow my contributions you will see that all that I do is edit for NPOV. I'm sorry, but that is not the impression I've gained since I first came across you in February. Perhaps that will change, given time. I'm curious to know why you do not want to spread the name Allah outright and feel you must 'perk peoples curiosity' in order to in a sense 'trick' them into discovering what Allah is about? I believe many people don't realise that "Allah = God", and that those who are actually interested in reading about "God" in the context of an islamic article will find the link to the Allah article useful. If I close one eye and squint real hard, I can almost see why you might think this is a "trick", but I assure you it is actually a good faith attempt to educate two distinct groups of readers: those who (to quote Aminz) equate Allah with Satan, and those who don't, but might be interested to learn more about islamic religious beliefs. — JEREMY 09:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, User:Timothy Usher seems to see deception in such editing as well. Besides, as I've just explained on User:Aminz's page the name Allah shouldn't be hidden but should be shown outright. To me hiding only makes one inclined to wonder, "Why is Allah hidden? Why does one need to be tricked in order to find information about Allah?" Such editing strikes me sooner as seeds for doubt. Netscott 09:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The deception isn't necessarily deliberate. Speaking from awkward experience, the POV forks force editors to make a choice both whether to translate or not, and if so (and we should) which fork to link to. In Islam-related articles, there will always be a reasonable case to be made that we should link to the Islamic fork.
My proposal to deal with this - mercilessly - is on Aminz' talk page. In brief, all links to shared concepts (religious or otherwise) should be in nearly every case to the main English-title article. If daughter articles are needed from there, so they are (although these should have English-language titles), but the links should be, in this case, to [[God]], not to [[Allah]] or to [[Allah|God]]. Similarly with the Jesus/Isa, Moses/Musa, Gabriel/Jibril and analogous forks.Timothy Usher 09:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Jeremy, appearingly in order to belittle his own bad faith editing User:Aminz is stating that my reverts of his edits were also done in bad faith. I demonstrated to him how my reverts were not bad baith and yet he fails to accept the truth seemingly to save face. For his having done this I now view him to be a less than honorable editor and wanted to inform you an editor that I do consider honorable accordingly. Perhaps you can explain to him the truth and allow him the chance to redeem himself as an editor? Thanks. Netscott 11:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Changes of this magnitude should not be decided by small cabals of editors in discussions scattered across a bunch of talk pages. If you want to delete all the articles with arabic titles, you're going to have to get some kind of well-advertised general approval (via, say, the Village Pump), then adhere to standard merge procedure for each of them. Otherwise you're just going to come across as a lunatic crusader (about which, I reserve judgment for the present). — JEREMY 11:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? In terms of a cabal, if you're talking about changing every example of the word Allah to God, I couldn't agree more... but you're talking about deleting articles with Arabic titles and Wikipedia crusades? That's seriously coming from left field for me. Netscott 11:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. And while I appreciate that Jeremy reserves judgement, I note that to nurture the notion that I may be on a crusade is analogous to asking whether he might not be on a jihad.Timothy Usher 11:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Netscott, I'm talking about Timothy's belief that arabic-titled articles like Isa (which he characterises as POV forks) should be deleted and their content incorporated into english-titled articles like Jesus. That would probably be perceived by most editors as crusading lunacy, and would certainly be disruptive, unless undertaken in the way I have suggested. And Timothy, which particular edits or edit suggestions of mine do you think resemble a jihad? — JEREMY 17:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Six years old - Aisha

Jeremy, I just overlooked that. I thought that I gave the article a thorough overhaul, but I missed that part. It IS true, kinda -- marriage at six, consummated at nine, per the hadith -- but that nuance had disappeared in the para I didn't vet thoroughly. Zora 08:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watchmanspace

I finished reverting all of that linkspam. Academic Challenger 09:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's very possible that he was using some sort of tool. He may also have had a lot of browser windows open, which is how a lot of page move vandals work. Academic Challenger 10:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] It's good and thanks!

Perfect. You rewrited it better than my original. I am bad with english, all my life i am in Bosnia, no connetions. As matter of fact i learnt english on Tv and Internet. So big thanks, and i can learn sideways... ;) --HarisM 12:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks for that kudos, whatever it means! :)
Sure i plan to photograph excavations. I allready have photographs of medival church in Mile, i will put it soon. All pictures i relase withourt (c) so that's no problem. I looked article on Bosnian pyramids and there is nothing wrong actualy, althrought it has somewhat negative tone, but it's okay to have cristicsm. After all that isn't digged completly, and as it says on my main page i am sceptical. Regards ;) --HarisM 12:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do your homework

--evrik 17:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian sf?

Hi Jeremy, good to hear from you, and thanks for the invitation. Normally I'd jump at the chance, but since our little girl was born 6 weeks ago, I've found it difficult to do much wikiing (which I believe is the only English word, apart from 'skiing', with a double-i). Maybe I'll have some more time later - I'll let you know. Adambrowne666 09:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Hi Jeremy, We are almost there to complete the revision of the proposal Wikiethics. Could you please have some time to review it quickly? Any comments would be appreciated. Best, Resid Gulerdem 02:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jeremy, thanks for your note. The editors contributing to it reviewed the proposal and put into a final form. I see that you think it requires more work. I respect your idea and I cannot say it is not true. But, it is hard for me to see how it can be modified further. If you can joing the discussion and modification efforts, I would appreciate for it. We would like to know specificially the points need to be improved and how they should. Could you please be more specific and help us with the improvements. If you would like to join us, we can delay putting the proposal to a vote to a later time.
Best, RG

Jeremy, could you please make the spelling corrections on the proposal Wikiethics page. If you would like to suggest new ideas to include in the proposal you can discuss them on my talk page too. I am open to new ideas and do appreciate for your review. You can, for example, change the quantitative definition of the consensus, supermajority and majority in the proposal. You know those that better than I do. Thanks a ton... RG

[edit] Please certify RfC

Please certify the RfC I've just created.Raphael1 12:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you very much for your comment on the RfC. Though you mistook me for a Muslim (I am not), your comment means much more to me, than your signature would have meant. Raphael1 17:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Working on Current event Backlog using AWB"

I used that comment as a defalt statement because i was working on mass clearing of the backlog in [[Category:Current events]] using autowikibrowser (Just wondering why you made the comment you made) Betacommand 07:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks Betacommand 07:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Khaybar

It sounds like you must be talking about something, but I honestly don't know what it is. How was the edit history altered? What inaccurate statments were made, to who, and where? Clue me in. If there's something sinister afoot, I'm not part of it.Timothy Usher 10:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, Jeremy, I didn't present any case or talk to any admins. All I did was post it - and on the wrong date, apparently, which shows you just how savvy I am in this regard.

Let me ask: why does it upset you? It didn't upset early Muslim historians, from whom we know what we know about the incidents. It was seen as a great victory. They made no effort to hide what they'd done.

Check out the Ibn Ishaq link I'd posted on the talk page: Muhammad tosses his cloak over the beautiful woman, so no one else can touch her, captures her husband and he's tortured to make him show them buried treasure, then excecuted. Then Muhammad marries her.

Recall that Gabriel said that Muhammad alone could have however many wives he liked, that captives are lawful and that their marriages to the defeated are nullified. This was the context.

That's not Daniel Pipes or Bat Ye'or. It's Ibn Ishaq, and the Qur'an.

We can repudiate all this, and concede that Muhammad made some very poor moral choices at times, and, most likely, adulterated the message of Gabriel with his own to justify these choices. Or, we can embrace the whole thing, and say, this is how God wants us to be (or at least did back then, but that poses its own set of problems.) But suppressing the facts can't be the right answer.

That's my take on it, anyhow.Timothy Usher 19:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Cosson

Hello Jeremy, Thanks for cleaning up the the Elizabeth Cosson page. However your statement regarding her being the most senior female in the ADF is incorrect, that honor belongs to AVM Julie Hammer, http://www.australianoftheyear.gov.au/bio.asp?pID=118, Liz's achievments have been in the Army. Also I dont know how to verify the Elizabeth Cosson image which I sourced from the image link on her page... can you fix that?

[edit] Hi

Hi Jeremy!
I was just wondering what your real age is? (I presume you've stated your age in a "tongue-in-cheek" way) --Fir0002 www 10:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, my mistake! I didn't see the first line with the DOB info - I just saw the "Jeremy has seen a lot of geography in his eight years" and saw how professional your edits were and I thought there must be a mistake (and it was mine! :-). Sorry to bother you, --Fir0002 www 11:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JP cartoon victims and AfD on Religion of Peace

You might be interested in the table I've just created, which lists Wikipedias JP-cartoon victims. And maybe you're as well interested in voting on the Article for deletion for the article Religion of Peace. Raphael1 17:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] As I might have told you

"This editor thinks Trinitarian Christology is a Surrealist Joke" - of course I do! But it's a big leap from here to what is commonly called "Islam" (and I wouldn't have a userbox either way.)Timothy Usher 09:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Islamic Barnstar Award

Thank you for voting to keep the image for the Islamic Barnstar Award at the May 27 voting page. --JuanMuslim 1m 13:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been pondering various names for the image award. The thing to get across is that anyone can get and give such an award - that its not about being Muslim - and that its for effort on Islam-related articles, templates, etc. Here are all names that I considered: Islamic Barnstar Award, Islamic Articles Barnstar Award, Islamic Articles Award, Islamic Topics Barnstar Award, Islamic-related Barnstar Award, Islamic Gratitude Barnstar Award, and Islamic Contributor Barnstar Award. Any others? I think the current name is the best name because its the most simple, and also the image description clearly states that anyone can receive and distribute it.--JuanMuslim 1m 17:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted reorganisation of Talk:Euthanasia

I have replied in User talk:PJTraill#Talk:Euthanasia

[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Raphael1/Wikiethics

Since you previously showed interest in the former proposed policy Wikiethics, I'd like to inform you about this deletion review. Raphael1 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice advertisement above

And duly noted on the relevant board.

Look, we all know what the Muslim Guild is for - it's a way to get around WP:SPAM by gathering like-minded editors in one place, so people can say they weren't technically spamming ("exact words, Greg") while accomplishing the same goals.

The Muslim Guild should be abolished. The only thing I've ever seen it used for, besides spamming, is to attack other editors, as per BhaiSaab's recent post, your ill-considered (though since-forgiven) "Crusade" comments, and the execrable "User Comment" section of the talk page. Oh, and to make super-sure everyone knows who is a "Muslim editor" and who is not, as per the front page. This is un-wikipedian, inherently and intentionally divisive and just plain wrong.Timothy Usher 09:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Act in secrecy"

That statement's pretty stinky... how's one going to formulate Wikipedia policy in secrecy and ever expect it to come to pass? Nice.... Netscott 11:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination rule change

Since you are a witness of Anjoes Good Article nomination rule change, I'd be glad if you would comment on my arbitration case. Raphael1 17:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comment would be very welcome, since now even Jzg claims, that "Raphael's attempts to thwart the GA nom for the cartoons article undoubtedly violates WP:POINT.". Please correct that with your comment. Raphael1 18:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Raphael1 21:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Raphael1

Could you please move your comments on JzG's statement to the Talk page? An RfAr page is not supposed to be a discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Embedded in the large amount of text at the top of the WP:RFA page. it says, "This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment". User:Zoe|(talk) 02:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest, that the Arbitrators or clerks should decide that. Raphael1 02:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aisha

Jeremy, disputed sections of other Wikipedia articles based on original research don't count as reliable sources. Please stop adding unsourced claims to Wikipedia. Thanks.Timothy Usher 10:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to inform me what Hadith clearly states she was not six when married, and nine when...well, you know? I'm all ears.Timothy Usher 11:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you sir for your support at Muslim-Guild. Best regards. --- Faisal 11:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lowercase in Haditha Killings

You lowercased some words in Haditha killings "as per WP standards". Could you please point out these standards? Thanks. --217.235.255.109

[edit] 3RR violation on Muhammad

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

See also [4]. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen it is 3RR, you made 2 reverts that said the same thing in another wording. If you're willing not to touch the article for 24 hours I'm willing to unblock however -- Tawker 04:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

you made 2 reverts that said the same thing in another wording Well, I would submit that I initially defended the version in the article from an unregistered user making a POV claim in his edit summary then, when Hoopydink reverted me, I tried to come up with a compromise wording. Timothy Usher (the editor who brought the 3RR complaint against me) then reverted my new wording with another unsupportably POV remark in his edit summary. I reverted that, explaining my reasoning in my edit summary. After I'd made some other edits on the article, Tickle me reverted my compromise wording re. Aisha (ie. the "Muhammad is a pedophile" push-button issue this relates to, in case that wasn't obvious) with an argumentative edit summary. I reverted, then FairNBalanced restored the POV version again, claiming my compromise wording was POV. At that point, as my compromise was obviously unacceptable, I chose not to revert again. This is a controversial subject with a long history of discussion on this and other articles. Compromise wording such as I suggested has been accepted by consensus in the past. It is certainly my belief that presentation of uncertain or disputed historical issues as fact, based on argument from selective reading of religious texts, is unnecessarily POV, and misrepresents the encyclopaedic nature of this project. I also note that during the four hour period in question, no discussion on the subject took place on the article's talk page, nor did anyone express alarm at my behaviour. I'd guess, however, that Timothy Usher saw this response as something of a challenge.
I'm more than happy to avoid the Muhammad article for a while. Thanks for your attention to this. — JEREMY 05:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Jeremy, I didn't report you because you were confrontational with me, I reported you because you'd violated 3RR. Though it is probably a good idea not to approach people that way. Some of your recent edit summaries have also been less than civil.
As for the talk page, if you'd made a showing, I've no doubt there would have been several editors more than willing to talk to you. You never bothered to do so.
Your statement, "I tried to come up with a compromise wording" is rather misleading - you'd picked a previous version by Faisal out of the history verbatim[5]. It's puzzling to me why you would misrepresent something so easily verifiable.Timothy Usher 05:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
you'd picked a previous version by Faisal out of the history I wrote those words myself, and made no reference to the article history. That I happened to coincide with someone else's wording should not be surprising, given that my wording is entirely appropriate to the circumstances, providing as it does a simple, uncomplicated compromise between the two POVs. I am happy to see that you've made your complaint on the basis of a misunderstanding, rather than out of malice. — JEREMY 05:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
No, change that; Faisal's wording — which to plagiarise I'd have had to have trawled back through a week's worth of edits — almost reproduces my identical wording from two months ago. Please assume good faith and avoid accusing others of deliberate falsehood, Timothy. — JEREMY 06:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so you reverted to your version. Not, "when Hoopydink reverted me, I tried to come up with a compromise wording."Timothy Usher 06:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please. Do you think I went back through two months of my own edits to find those couple of words? Clearly, my mind works consistently from month to month when it comes to such simple and obvious wording. Why do you persist in going against Occam's razor and assuming nefarious behaviour when a much more obvious explanation presents itself? — JEREMY 06:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Timothy, could you please show me where you found out my username had been unblocked? I've hunted around and can't seem to find the relevant location; I'd have thought it would have been at your original complaint, but there doesn't seem to have been any change there... Thanks. — JEREMY 10:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Scratch that; the answer is: my block log. Doh. — JEREMY 10:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me to that, by the way. — JEREMY 10:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem.Timothy Usher 10:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

IP unblocked. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"In contrast, it took you over nine hours from Timothy's request to let me know what had happened". Actually, under 2 hours. I blocked you at 21:10, and informed you at 23:01. Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The violation was put up at WP:AN/3RR. It was a clear violation, and so I blocked you. We have hardly been in edit conflicts in the past, and certainly not any recently. There was nothing controversial about this block, and your insinuation that there was something irregular about it is incorrect at best. Jayjg (talk) 06:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I could have suggested on your talk page that you revert yourself first. I thought you were a fairly experienced editor, but I didn't realize that you had not been blocked for 3RR before. Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] autoblock

Does it work now??Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It should work now.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaza Beach Incident

Hi, JGB, I added an article from the Jerusalem Post about the incident, but is there any chance you'd like to add more to the Israeli perspective? With my (limited) knowledge of aviation and arterilliry weapon systems the whole thing seemed pretty dubious, and I'm not surprised that the Israelis could so easily debunk it. I also think that a "hoax" tag might be appropriate if this thing develops. V. Joe 08:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi. You wrote "The event has been generally referred to by this name, despite the fact that its circumstances do not resemble those of a massacre in the normative sense." Please clarify this, as it seems off hand as original research and unnecessary editorializing. Would it qualify as a massacre in the 'normative sense' if the victims were somebody other than Palestinians? I am hoping you will either remove this or NPOV it as much as possible. Thanks, Ramallite (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments

Jeremy, thank you for your well-considered comments on my talk page and on Talk:Aisha. I will respond to all of them soon. Just been a little busy.Timothy Usher 06:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Lifestyle vs. census checkbox...yes, I think this is the underlying issue, as I've spoken of here[6]. I do understand why people are upset about it, but foundational issues are at stake. If the west were to view the past fifteen hundred years of European rulers, events, jurisprudence and social structure as a matter of religion, mainstream textbooks as they exist today would be denounced as vile propaganda against Christianity, and wikipedia would most certainly not exist.Timothy Usher 23:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock

I think all the autoblocks have expired. Sasquatch t|c 17:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ermm, sorry about taking so long to get back to you. I think the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is the place to go; I've got no idea about internet connections, etc.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope it works now. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the tech village pump as above. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 07:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC).
I hope it workd now. Blnguyen | rant-line 08:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You're again welcome I wonder if Blnguyen caught notice of that... hopefully you'll either get a different ISP or find a solution shortly! :-) Netscott 09:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamophobia

Not sure if you noticed but Islamophobia has been unprotected. You previously expressed an interest in editing the intro. I'm not planning on editing it for a few days while others who haven't edited it as heavily have an opportunity to edit it independent of my influence. I'd like to see what you had in mind for the intro. Netscott 22:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Human rights watch now confirm that it might have been an old shell (unexploded or part of a land mine) Stop the POV pushing and stick to what sources say.

If you continue this POV pushing this will go to ArbCom. Zeq 09:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The issue is not to respond or not

Just folow policy and don't push POV. Sources are still sources even if you can not read them while your "ideas" are just OR. Zeq 11:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] other than PA

other than PA I would like to understand what you meant by:

I am not "using the argument that [I] can't read it". The problems with the quote as you're trying to insert it are, a) it is your (original) translation has not been verified (in fact, it has been refuted), b) the quote in question does not bear directly on the issue (being about how the UNSC deals with the Israeli/Palestinian issue), and c) the quote, even if relevant, would not belong in the WP:LEAD. You seem unable or unwilling to address the important issues in this discussion, falling back on strawman accusations and talk-page threats. Please try to come back to the table on this. — JEREMY 12:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please speak clearly so I can understand what it is that you want from me. talking to me n hints and riddles will not be understood. I am serious. I am just not that smart. explain in plain english so i will be able to understand. Zeq 13:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

PS make sure you read WP:NPA .

maybe you can start by explaing this: "the quote in question does not bear directly on the issue (being about how the UNSC deals with the Israeli/Palestinian issue), "

[edit] X-Forwarded-For

Copied from WP:VPT:

We don't actually need the ISP's involvement to list their proxies, as long as the proxy IPs are known and have an appropriate reverse DNS entry. In this case, unfortunately, reverse DNS for 202.72.148.102 just returns NXDOMAIN. If you could get them to fix that, that would be great. If it was something like "cache1.westnet.com.au" then we could be sure that IP really is a dedicated proxy. -- Tim Starling 07:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, I hope you are able to get your difficulties sorted out with this autoblock business. Also I hope you can do some editing on Islamophobia when you get a chance. See ya. ;-) Netscott 15:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bosnian Pyramid

Just explain to me what you have against calling an author of pseudohistory an author of pseudohistory? Granted, S.O. is also just an author, but the point that someone who is notable only because of his well marketed pseudohistorical research is central to any description of him. If S.O. suddenly begins presenting empirical evidence and demonstrates a dedication to the scientific method, then he can be considered something more than a propagator of pseudohistory. Hiberniantears 17:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] see article talk page

btw, you photo has not beem upadted for a long time. Zeq 09:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Why are you not working to improve this article? You have made some valid points... why not apply them??? Netscott 12:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a rather defeatist attitude. It is difficult for me to respect such an attitude. I understand that the display of the cartoons for some is a relgious moral affront... but Wikipedia doesn't play favorites. As a whole I think the question of religious sensitivity or lack thereof is equally balanced across Wikipedia. I particularly think this with articles like Piss Christ found with such prominent displays of religiously controversial imagery. Netscott 13:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
What I accept is that there is consensus for that article to be listed as a Good article and the majority of this consensus is from neutral third party editors. Plus your refusal to edit the actual article makes your arguments seem much less than sincere. Netscott 14:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Follow User:Cedars' advice and put in for a review to have it delisted. By delisting it you're single-handedly wasting the time that all of those editors put in to commenting about having the article relisted. Netscott 14:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Until you actually start editing on the article again relative to your concerns I'm going to have difficulty assuming good faith. Netscott 14:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Prior to making any report, I'm going to in good faith advise you to self revert Jeremy, for you are in violation of 3RR on Wikipedia:Good articles. Thanks. Netscott 14:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Self-revert. Netscott 14:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
In my view it's bad faith when you actually haven't even touched the article in so long. I'm giving you a minute to self-revert... if none is forthcoming I'll file a report. Netscott 14:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Apologies, false statements. Netscott 15:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Hi,

Thanks for taking an interest in the good articles project. The article you removed from the good articles list, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, has been reviewed by members of the good article project and been found to meet the standard of a good article (see decision here). Though we normally encourage users to delist articles they don't feel meet the criteria. In this case, since the article has been reviewed, we would rather you did not remove it from the list unless you have since sought another review that resolves to remove the article.

Thanks,

Cedars 13:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Please use the talk page at Good Articles to discuss your disagreement, rather than edit summaries for repeated nil edits on the page itself. Kafziel 14:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaza Invasion

I redirected this to the operation name, Operation Summer Rain. This was because it is not really an invasion, as Israel has stated it does not intend to re-occupy Gaza. Its just a rescue mission to save the soldier who was captured earlier, so locating it at its operational name seems more appropriate. Rangeley 15:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clumsy editing

Jeremy this is a advisory to be more careful editing Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy so as not to remove the commentary of others. Netscott 05:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Commentary updated in view of plausible explanation for commentary removal. Netscott 05:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

AGF is a bit difficult to go by when the commentary removed was specifically and solely in regards to yourself. I've shown you good faith on numerous occassions... without any express reason to do so just because I felt it was the right thing to do.. but lately I'm finding it difficult to maintain such a spirit. Netscott 05:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Well the only plausible explanation was that you reverted to where I removed an extraneous cat (after Homestarmy's edit) and then swapped out a template... but as you're a competent editor that just seemed odd. Is that what indeed occurred? Netscott 05:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I've adjusted my intial post in accord with this explanation. Netscott 05:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA and Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Anything wrong with this picture?

Someone else besides myself and User:Homestarmy re-listed it. We were just making sure that the talk page was in accord with that other person having re-listed it. Netscott 11:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you hold the view that the cartoons are demonstrations of "Islamophobia"? Netscott 12:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh and about your message concerning the possibility of my applying a 3RR warning to your talk page. I only did that previously to equilibriate the lack of User:Kafziel not having done so. His having given me one was rather idiotic in my opinion in view of the fact that he didn't give you the same warning in kind (equal behavior merits equal admonishment). I ended up removing both my previous WP:POINT and WP:3RR warnings in good faith and in observance of the idiotic nature of the whole thing. Thing is, I still have Kafziel's warning in my archives when by all rights nothing should be there. Netscott 12:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm just trying to understand person-to-person your view about why the cartoons shouldn't be presented like they are. Is it not about context? Al Fagr put one on their headline page for F's sake. Netscott 12:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Al Fagr generated 0 controversy... not a freaking peep (certainly nothing that merited reporting about with any notoriety). It's funny but despite your attention having been repeatedly called to Piss Christ there's not been word one out of you regarding it's displaying of this image. So what, are Christians' sentitivities any less? Can we say there might be an appearance of hypocrisy there? Uh, yeah... This is compounded by the fact that you want to attribute the sum total of over 200 editors voting yes for the cartoons' display on the article as motivated by a desire to show solidarity with Jyllands-Posten regarding freedom of speech. Saying that is so lame when you have no basis for making such a sweeping generalization. Netscott 13:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Calling those who've endeavored to maintain the consensus "fanatics" particularly in the editorial comment area is a first class personal attack against them. Don't make such statements Jeremy. Netscott 10:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy there are only a few editors you could be referring to. Calling them "fanatics" is a personal attack. See WP:NPA. Do not make such statements. Netscott 10:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to debate this with you Jeremy. Do not remove this warning. Netscott 10:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Make a post on WP:AN or WP:ANI and see if Wikipedia admins agree that this warning should be removed. Netscott 11:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty mild personal attack as they go - and, judging from recent experience, one that would be tolerated or even supported were Netscott not directly involved in the content dispute. While I support the display of the cartoons, I take issue with this warning, with the nakedly plastic standard upon which it's based, and with the bullying style its issuer has come to all too often affect.

Additionally, as Netscott has declared his intention to remove from his talk page such warnings with which he disagrees, it's not clear why he should insist that you adopt a different protocol on your own.Timothy Usher 20:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This coming from the defender of User:FairNBalanced Nice. A potentially more apt policy that'd apply to those who refer to fellow Wikipedia editors as "fanatics" might be Wikipedia:Civility. Netscott 20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commons link on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

You mentioned this as one of your complaints relative to this article so it makes me curious to know if you have the same complaint relative to this section of the article on Muhammad? Netscott 19:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Jon Snow confronts Dep. Israeli Ambassador on Israeli terror (YouTube)

The larger issue, that this policy will prevent this terrible conflict from being solved, and will inevitably create blowback against Israel and the United States, does not seem to concern Olmert, the U.S. government or the U.S. media.
Israeli Textbooks and Children’s Literature Promote Racism and Hatred Toward Palestinians and Arabs
Propaganda* and war *hasbara, both on and off Wikipedia
We are all made complicit

--RosaLuxemburg 03:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ambulances

I thought it wasn't clear that the ambulances were specifically targeted and not rather collateral damage? That is the reason I added that line. The sources says they were targeted, but as Tewfik pointed out, that source does not explain how they know, and also as he pointed out Israel has not yet offered a response. If it is the case that they were targetted intentionally, fine, but that is how it reads in this section.--Paraphelion 07:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing is the way the section reads right now it pretty much assumes the attack was deliberate as the quote says "target". It would be a little more clear that it is not confirmed or merely a claim if the quote was attributed to someone specific, as we have in other cases all over the article, for example with the incendiary section.--Paraphelion 07:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Though hopefully even if it is not confirmed that it was an accident but Israeli merely claims it is, that could be added too. And thank you for your input.--Paraphelion 07:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Also if you have a chance can you please take a look at the Lebanese casualties discussion on the talk page and reply if you can think of a good solution.--Paraphelion 07:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Zaritayta incident.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Zaritayta incident.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Hetar 07:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Lebanese_ambulance.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lebanese_ambulance.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Lebanese ambulance.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lebanese ambulance.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 17:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Alchemy_Cycle_symbol.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Alchemy_Cycle_symbol.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Lebanese ambulance.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lebanese ambulance.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 18:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Megaphone

Hi Jeremy, The reason I changed the section is that there does not seem to be any record of official Israeli endorsement or involvement in the Megaphone desktop tool. Even the Times' assertion that "The Foreign Ministry has ordered trainee diplomats to track websites and chatrooms" is then tempered with "Israel’s Foreign Ministry must avoid direct involvement with the campaign." Thus the only official party taking responsibility for the program is its publisher, World Union of Jewish Students. You may also find the Megaphone's Talk interesting. Let me know what you think, TewfikTalk 04:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That is definitely better, and I appreciate your initiative in making the change. I'm still uncomfortable with the Times claim (which is still an RS of course) because of the Talk:Megaphone desktop tool discussions which haven't turned up (I think) any official record of either the Gissin quote or any Israeli action in the matter. Cheers, TewfikTalk 04:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] athiesm revert

good call! Paganism: one who worships something other than God. I knew it didn't sound quite right, but I did it anyways hoping if there was a better way someone would catch it, probably not the best editing I've done, thanks for citing a good example for your revert. You'de be surprised on how many people don't do that. Somerset219 02:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi! Remember me?

Hi. How are you. Remember me, Visoko article guy? :) I wrote a new: Visoko during the Middle Ages, and again my english isn't much better (grammar mostly) so i kinda need help. If you can check, or somebody you know and have time i would be gratefull, really. I don't want to see article end up like it needs cleanup and other things, i want to make it right, from beggining, but my enlish is slowly improving but it is going! I hope i will be able to write fluently in about year or two. Thank you in advance in any kind of help you provide me, if not, thanks for reading and that long ago correcting on Visoko article! --HarisM 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Brontosaurus skeleton 1880s.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brontosaurus skeleton 1880s.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — User:ACupOfCoffee@

[edit] Large pathetic galaxy

I have just nominated the above article which you began for deletion. You might want to take part in the debate over at AP:AFD. Best wishes Chrislintott 19:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/r/User_talk%7EJeremygbyrne_08dd.html"